A duty to recontact in genetics: context matters

Rapid advances in genomic technologies and their increasing clinical application are driving the need for a policy on whether to recontact patients to inform them of new genetic discoveries that may have relevance to their health. Importantly, the duty to recontact is context-specific, and professionals should be offered guidance accordingly.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Pyeritz, R. E. The coming explosion in genetic testing — is there a duty to recontact? N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1367–1369 (2011).

  2. 2.

    Otten, E. et al. Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet. Med. 17, 668–678 (2015).

  3. 3.

    David, K. L. et al. Patient re-contact after revision of genomic test results: points to consider — a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0391-z (2018).

  4. 4.

    Carrieri, D. et al. Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 169–182 (2019).

  5. 5.

    Wouters, R. H. P. et al. Am I my family’s keeper? Disclosure dilemmas in next-generation sequencing. Hum. Mutat. 37, 1257–1262 (2016).

  6. 6.

    Bredenoord, A. L. et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 27, 41–47 (2011).

  7. 7.

    Wade, C. H. & Kalfoglou, A. L. When do genetic researchers have a duty to recontact study participants? Am. J. Bioeth. 6, 26–27 (2006).

  8. 8.

    Ploem, C. et al. A duty to recontact in the context of genetics: futuristic or realistic? Eur. J. Health Law 25, 537–553 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is written as part of the technology assessment of next-generation sequencing in personalized oncology (TANGO) project, funded by ZonMw, The Hague, Netherlands.

Author information

N.A.A.G. researched the literature. All authors contributed to discussions of the content, wrote the article and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Correspondence to Noor A. A. Giesbertz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark